More on Trump
Previous volume HERE
686816
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 5 Mar 26 at 15:55
|
>> Ignoring the rights or wrongs of this conflict, I find Pete Hegseth's gung-ho media broadcasts
>> about how many Iranian service personnel that have been killed rather distasteful.
>>
>> This was especially noticeable re the sinking of the Iranian Frigate in the Indian Ocean.
>>
>>
>> It's war. It's not a video game. The Iranians are out gunned and outclassed technically.
>>
>>
>> Have some respect.
>>
I agree PH seems to relish the death count, and to UK sensitivities is unplessant.
But it is little different to the language and emotion deployed by many in discussing any competitive sport - boxing, football, even chess with its attack and defence.
It is a war. In wars one side seeks to kill the other until they win or the losers surrender.
The mealie mouthed alternative - "we greatly regret the loss of xx lives of following the torpedong of the Iranian naval vessel operating under the orders of a violent repressive regime which over the last few months has killed 10,000++ of its own civilian".
|
Trump said: Iranian navy is floating at the bottom of the sea (sic), then the US sink an Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean and another is reported to be on its way.
Hesgeth states: The first sinking of a warship by torpedo since the 2nd world war, conveniently ignoring the Genera Belgrano!
Hillary Clinton stated she cannot recall ever meeting Epstein and a picture is shown with her tugging at his tie.
I'm thinking I can't believe anything that comes out of US politicians mouths.
|
>> Trump said: Iranian navy is floating at the bottom of the sea (sic), then the
>> US sink an Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean and another is reported to be
>> on its way.
>>
>> Hesgeth states: The first sinking of a warship by torpedo since the 2nd world war,
>> conveniently ignoring the Genera Belgrano!
>>
>>
I think he means US forces.
|
@ bathtub tom said:
>> Hillary Clinton stated she cannot recall ever meeting Epstein and a picture is shown with
>> her tugging at his tie.
>>
>> I'm thinking I can't believe anything that comes out of US politicians mouths.
Are you sure you're not being duped by an AI generated photograph?
|
<< I'm thinking I can't believe anything that comes out of US politicians mouths. >>
Or many others, perhaps ?
|
|
Says he while conveniently ignoring the torpedoing of the INS Khukri.
|
>> It's war. It's not a video game. The Iranians are out gunned and outclassed technically. >>
It is indeed a war - tho I don't think it has been officially declared ? But sailing off Sri Lanka and then spotting a ship flying an Iranian flag - Let's sink it ! seems a purely provocative action with no direct purpose. It just expands the battle area unnecessarily, and it's quite big enough already.
Is anyone taking notice of Ukraine any more ?
|
>> >> It's war. It's not a video game. The Iranians are out gunned and outclassed
>> technically. >>
>>
>> It is indeed a war - tho I don't think it has been officially declared
>> ? But sailing off Sri Lanka and then spotting a ship flying an Iranian flag
>> - Let's sink it ! seems a purely provocative action with no direct purpose. It
>> just expands the battle area unnecessarily, and it's quite big enough already.
>>
>> Is anyone taking notice of Ukraine any more ?
With an Iranian strategy of involving as many as possible in the conflict, unconcerned whether a military target or not, an Iranian warship anywhere on the planet could be considered a threat.
It could certainly fire on any US or middle east registered tanker, a cruise ship, or simply bombard any unprotected port it chose.
|
<< It could certainly fire on any US or middle east registered tanker, a cruise ship, or simply bombard any unprotected port it chose. >>
Quite like Trump really ?
|
"In other news.....
It's interesting to note that the rich expats who escaped the harsh tax regime in the UK, now want UK tax payers to repatriate them!
That seems fair.......not!"
I was led to believe that those people who are repartriated on UK government chartered flights have to sign some sort of agreement, stating that they will/must repay the cost of flight ticket (if they cannot afford to buy a ticket from an airline). If someone can't afford a ticket they can get an emergency loan (from the foreign office or Embassy) which has to be paid back.
So basically, those expats don't get a free ride home courtesy of UK taxpayers.
|
>>
>> Is anyone taking notice of Ukraine any more ?
>>
Well, yes. The US are chasing them to supply them with their cheap anti-drone weapons. It's far too expensive to deploy conventional anti-missile defence against swarms of drones.
Irony there somewhere!
|
Hopefully all this is hurting Iran's ability to supply Russia with drones with which to attack Ukraine.
The execrable Telegraph, the Mail et al will never give up on their Starmer-smearing and joyfully reported the non-news that Trump says Starmer is a "loser", like the US military whose names appear on war memorials presumably that he also said were losers. But he's doing OK. He explained for Trump's benefit that the war is illegal and that there is no plan, and certainly not one discussed with the UK.
Blair and Bush at least took the Iraq proposal to the UN even if they only got an ambiguous resolution and while there was and is a row around the massaging of evidence, they did think evidence relevant. Both UK and US also obtained the approval of Parliament / Congress.
Trump has done none of these things and has so far produced several different "reasons" for the war, the main one being that "Iran must never have nuclear weapons", despite Trump previously saying 6 months ago that all of Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated".
Instead he has summarily decided to attack, resulting in Iran or its proxies lobbing missiles or drones at a dozen other countries including Cyprus/Akrotiri and according to Bessent he is about to increase the 10% 'universal' tariff to 15% next week. How grateful we should be.
So of course Starmer should have done everything Trump wanted? What would Farage have done? Or Badenough?
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 5 Mar 26 at 20:08
|
>> So of course Starmer should have done everything Trump wanted? What would Farage have done?
>> Or Badenough?
>>
Well he largely ended up doing what he wanted anyway, I suppose he could have just got there a bit quicker.
Anyway turns out the only destroyer spare won't arrive until sometime next week, after the greek, french, spanish, italian and dutch ships have arrived.
|
Can't argue with what KS has done. As you well know he would have been slaughtered for falling into line and backing Trump had he done that.
The name calling from Trump is a badge of honour. Trump has trashed every President who came before him whose name he can remember.
He is clearly off his trolley. He's already taking aim at Cuba. But the real criminals here are the Republicans who sustain him.
We won't hear what the King says to Trump but I hope it's a few home truths and I don't think he will suck up to Trump. That said Trump won't understand or hear it and will claim Charles congratulated him bigly on al his great achievements.
I see Noem has been fired. Not for her incompetence or many illegal acts but because she made Trump look bad.
The attack was utter madness for the US and both he and Netanyahu are war criminals now.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 6 Mar 26 at 22:26
|
>> Can't argue with what KS has done. As you well know he would have been
>> slaughtered for falling into line and backing Trump had he done that.
>>
If he was switched on he would have known that and picked a course and stuck with it but he's decided on the worse of both worlds.
>> He is clearly off his trolley. He's already taking aim at Cuba. But the real
>> criminals here are the Republicans who sustain him.
Very much so, he's off talking about White House decorations. He doesn't know what day of the week it is.
|
>> If he was switched on he would have known that and picked a course and
>> stuck with it but he's decided on the worse of both worlds.
Maybe, although I don't know what course that would be. Surely what is right changes when the facts change?
It's quite refreshing in a way that Starmer clearly spends a lot less time worrying about what it looks like than the policy itself, unlike the last government for example which seemed to me to do the reverse.
Trump has zero self awareness as well as no shame. The "not Churchill" jibe was very silly indeed, but this is from a despicable excuse for a president who thinks his ugly mug should be on Mount Rushmore.
I'm beginning to take him personally, it's not healthy!
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 7 Mar 26 at 10:46
|
>> >> If he was switched on he would have known that and picked a course
>> and
>> >> stuck with it but he's decided on the worse of both worlds.
>>
>> Maybe, although I don't know what course that would be. Surely what is right changes
>> when the facts change?
>
He had the choice to say no and stick to it or just say yes from the beginning to allow them the use of DG and Fairford. Now he's been publicly criticized he's had to bend the knee which makes him look weak.
Nothing changed with regards the us of the two bases.
I thought he was an inoffensive wishy washy sort of PM, nothing about him either way. Not really I leader or a communicator but reasonably competent.
But, imo, he's really messed this up. Mind you he'll be gone soon I suppose.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fairford
|
|
I must have missed the knee bending.
|
>> I must have missed the knee bending.
>>
I'd say changing his mind after a bit of pressure from Trump covers that.
|
My take on it is entirely different.
The initial decision not to join in was taken on the basis of the "war" being entirely illegal (both in the UK and UN judgement). Given Starmer's background that would rightly be a red flag. The decision to refrain was no doubt also affected by the assessment of the effects of previous (dubiously adjudged legal) forays in the Middle East, notably Iraq and Afghanistan. ("Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it").
IMO, that was a correct stance, and I'm pretty sure supported by the majority of the British public (except those whipped up by the right-wing press).
The widening of the conflict by attacking both Akrotiri and civilian targets in the Gulf States (with UK citizens affected) created a paradigm shift. Under international law that changed the nature of the assessment of illegality, since "self-defence" is legal, and also created a (partial) shift in public opinion. Against this background the move to "defensive" manoeuvres was/is entirely sensible. (It's unconscionable that we shouldn't take measures to protect our people and assets).
Until/unless there is a significant change of circumstances, it should remain that way - this is not our war.
I'm slightly less relaxed about the actual response, but anyone that pretends that the UK can currently put together a response akin to the Falklands is deluding themselves, and hasn't been watching the history of our armed forces. Much of that lack of capability is down to successive Governments (and though the current one might have to take some blame for lack of readiness, the seeds of that lie back in various previous governments).
It is what it is - my own assessment is that there is little stomach in the UK for Trump and his wars, or for joining in. The current government has a difficult tightrope to walk, but in detached assessment doesn't seem to be doing to badly.
|
That's fair enough, it looks very different from my detached assessment. He looks all over the place to me.
I get the legal arguement but I think it's a useful bit of smoke and mirrors to cover for him coming under pressure from WH and having to change his mind.
I find it hard to believe to believe that the strikes by Iran were surprising and therefore need a change of policy, what did he think they were going to do.
He clearly thought something was going to happen or extra aircraft wouldn't have been sent earlier this year to Akrotiri and the Middle East.
I think he's tried to sit on two stools and ended up on the floor.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 8 Mar 26 at 11:23
|
>>
>> I think he's tried to sit on two stools and ended up on the floor.
>>
I'm not sure how to interpret that stance.
Either it indicates that you feel we should have joined in from scratch, or that we shouldn't, and also shouldn't have subsequently changed position when the facts on the ground (and the assessment of legality) changed.
Whichever, it doesn't really resonate with me.
|
>> I'm not sure how to interpret that stance.
>>
>> Either it indicates that you feel we should have joined in from scratch, or that
>> we shouldn't, and also shouldn't have subsequently changed position when the facts on the ground
>> (and the assessment of legality) changed.
>>
>> Whichever, it doesn't really resonate with me.
>>
Yes he should have stuck to his guns one way or the other. Instead he's realised why when the US President rings the answer from no10 is 'how high? ' he's not the first PM to end up doing that and he won't be the last
Change of facts, legal opinions, defensive, offensive operations etc are all just a smoke screem to cover for him being told what to do the by the US.
I thought he was naive to think he could hold off the US, but not overly surprising as he does seem to struggle with the politics of things like this. The gov seems to end up in problems of their own making or easily avoided.
|
>> Change of facts, legal opinions, defensive, offensive operations etc are all just a smoke screem
>> to cover for him being told what to do the by the US.
I think C4P may have to split into two 'agree to differ' cohorts over this point.
|
>> I think C4P may have to split into two 'agree to differ' cohorts over this
>> point.
Nah, I'll sit on the fence
|
|
The fence has a barbed wire topping, good luck with that LOL
|
As I already said, what is right changes when the facts change.
And I still don't think UK is mandated to make a general attack on Iran. Trump's war remains illegal and there is still no credible plan.
Starmer could ask Parliament for approval to declare war on Iran, but I don't think he would get it. Or should get it.
|
>> As I already said, what is right changes when the facts change.
>>
>> And I still don't think UK is mandated to make a general attack on Iran.
>> Trump's war remains illegal and there is still no credible plan.
Given the amount of time and energy devoted to the legality of Iraq war it's not surprising that Starmer is cautious.
Badenoch behaves as if that never happened. Actually I think she's off her trolley.
|
Starms has really done the best possible.
At the outset, the initial attack was unjustified and illegal. Hence no support.
After Iran started lobbing missiles and drones in all directions, at our interests, allies, citizens, service personel, assets, bases abroad an active defensive stance was called for, and allowing the US to use their bases here is an active part of that defense.
I could sleep well at night having done that.
However, knowing what was coming, its criminal not to have assets on standby even actively on route
That should keep him awake at night
|
Personal view - Starmer made fundamentally the wrong choice at the outset.
It is not our war and AFAIK we were not asked to take part. But to deny traditionally our closest ally and for whom we rely upon for the NATO umbrella, the use of our bases was at best foolish, possibly utterly stupid.
He has now eased back to allow their use for "defence" purposes. This is just a weak "save face" excuse as they are now being used as should have been permitted originally.
Some weaknesses in our defence infrastructure are the product of 2 or 3 decades of under funding. But it is indefensible that we neither:
- anticipated possible defence needs in the region despite conflict signalled months in advance
- are unable to deploy any efeective naval or other support rapidly
|
>> It is not our war and AFAIK we were not asked to take part. But
>> to deny traditionally our closest ally and for whom we rely upon for the NATO
>> umbrella, the use of our bases was at best foolish, possibly utterly stupid.
How can we let them use our bases for an attack that's unlawful.
Just makes us accessories after the fact as it were.
Libya 1986 anybody?
|
How can we let them use our bases for an attack that's unlawful.
>>
>> Just makes us accessories after the fact as it were.
>>
>>
>> Libya 1986 anybody?
Whether it was unlawful is questionable - in particular whether Iran could be considered a real and immediate threat.
That Trump sanctioned the attack without approval from congress is an issue for the US. That there is no clear strategy or plausible end game is a real deficiency. I would not defend his actions - but he (temporarily) is POTUS - head of our special relationshp ally.
The absence of UN involvement reflects their abysmal performance over recent decades. Trump rightly called them hopeless and desparately in need of reform. Wasting time seeking "legitimacy" thtrough a UN resolution would be a waste of time.
A wider question - the Iranian regime were/are corrupt, violent, an international threat, and execute their own citiens to maintain power. To deny an attempt to bring down such a regime on the bais it may be illegal begs the question - is the alternative to simply stand idly by
Last edited by: Terry on Sun 8 Mar 26 at 18:12
|
>>To deny an attempt to bring down such a
>> regime on the bais it may be illegal begs the question - is the alternative
>> to simply stand idly by
>>
The alternative is negotiation backed by such sanctions as are needed and available. Obama did it but Trump thinks he knows better.
The idea that Starmer is somehow floppy here ignores reality and misses the point.
Iran will not give in easily if at all. It seems likely the US has bitten off more than it can chew. Iran is is the most indigestible prey in the ME. Much more so than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
The idea that UK should have fallen in behind the US just because we rely on them is naïve. Even ignoring legality, if the US was serious then it should have formed a coalition beforehand and developed objectives and a strategy. They have done the opposite. There is no plan B because there was no plan A.
It's possibly unwinnable, unless you count what was done to Gaza as a win. The only people defeated there were the non-combatants.
Starmer has probably made the least bad choices here. Trump is in a very deep hole. The US is shooting down $20,000 drones, and $1million ballistic missiles, with with $4million Patriot interceptors. To reliably take down a ballistic missile typically uses 2 Patriots. Estimates seem to be that Iran has 3,000 missiles and the US maybe 1,600 Patriots. The The US now wants Ukraine style interceptor drones to counter the drone threat. Something else they did not prepare for.
I don't think Iran will ever really surrender. Survival is victory for them. Trump will either have to go on for a long time or walk away, claiming he has won. If I had to bet, that would be mine.
Maybe he'll claim he stopped another war.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 8 Mar 26 at 20:26
|
>> The alternative is negotiation backed by such sanctions as are needed and available. Obama did
>> it but Trump thinks he knows better.
>>
>> The idea that Starmer is somehow floppy here ignores reality and misses the point.
>>
>> Iran will not give in easily if at all. It seems likely the US has
>> bitten off more than it can chew. Iran is is the most indigestible prey in
>> the ME. Much more so than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
>>
>> The idea that UK should have fallen in behind the US just because we rely
>> on them is naïve. Even ignoring legality, if the US was serious then it should
>> have formed a coalition beforehand and developed objectives and a strategy. They have done the
>> opposite. There is no plan B because there was no plan A.
>>
>> It's possibly unwinnable, unless you count what was done to Gaza as a win. The
>> only people defeated there were the non-combatants.
>>
>> Starmer has probably made the least bad choices here. Trump is in a very deep
>> hole. The US is shooting down $20,000 drones, and $1million ballistic missiles, with with $4million
>> Patriot interceptors. To reliably take down a ballistic missile typically uses 2 Patriots. Estimates seem
>> to be that Iran has 3,000 missiles and the US maybe 1,600 Patriots. The The
>> US now wants Ukraine style interceptor drones to counter the drone threat. Something else they
>> did not prepare for.
>>
>> I don't think Iran will ever really surrender. Survival is victory for them. Trump will
>> either have to go on for a long time or walk away, claiming he has
>> won. If I had to bet, that would be mine.
>>
>> Maybe he'll claim he stopped another war.
I agree with much that you say save for the proposition that negotiations and sanctions will have any chance of success.
The regime has held power for decades, previous attempts at negotiations have proven futile, what further sanctions will likely change their mind as opposed to further impoverish the civilian pipulation is unclear.
|
What I don't get in this thread is the posts that acknowledge all Trump's deficiencies, admit the dubious legality of his actions, acknowledge the lack of any plan or prior involvement, bemoan the "collateral damage", but then still seem to think that our government should unequivocally follow and support the US (and Israeli) actions.
Hey ho; maybe it's just me?
On a lighter note, given Iran appears to have selected a new "Supreme Leader", but are refusing to name him (assuming it's a him; a her seems just a bit too left-field) because the Israelis have vowed to hunt him down, are we in for a long session of "I'm Spartacus" geographically distributed around the country?
|
>>Hey ho; maybe it's just me?
Not just you. I wouldn't want Trump to wash my car let alone take the country into battle with him.
|
<< How can we let them use our bases for an attack that's unlawful. >>
It's a waste of hot air arguing about whether a war is internationally illegal - one has been going on in Ukraine for 4 years now ! The fundamental difficulty about international law is there can be no effective enforcers, by definition. I-L can be no more than a set of guidelines which we must hope all nations agree to. Putin doesn't give a toss, and I don't think Trump does either, really.
|
|
The difference being that the UK has signed up to be governed by the jurisdiction of the ICC but neither the US or Russia has. The result being that Starmer can be sent to prison by the ICC for war crimes.
|
>> The difference being that the UK has signed up to be governed by the jurisdiction
>> of the ICC but neither the US or Russia has. The result being that Starmer
>> can be sent to prison by the ICC for war crimes.
>>
A triumph of principals over commonsense. A bit like going into the boxing ring with one hand tied behind the back, going out to bat blndfolded, driving a Morris Minor in an F1 grand prix and expecting to get on the podium.
The ICC is well intentioned, but utterly ineffectual. Consider the ogres it has failed to take to trial, let alone convict and jail.
Probability of Starmer conviction for letting the US use UK bases for attack purposes - so close to zero he is more likely to be struck by lightning.
|
>>
>> Probability of Starmer conviction for letting the US use UK bases for attack purposes -
>> so close to zero he is more likely to be struck by lightning.
>>
Given that the ICC already has arrest warrants out for the likes of both Putin and Netanyahu that seems somewhat dismissive.
The crux of the matter (as pointed out) is that neither Israel or Russia are ICC signatories, hence until those individuals visit a country that is, the warrants are ineffective.
In Starmer's case, if such a warrant were issued, then the UK, as a signatory, would be bound to act on it.
(And yes, I do realise there is a difference between arrest and subsequent conviction).
|
|
You will remember the business about the legal advice given to Blair before the 2nd Gulf War, and the need to include enough evidence to show that a war would be legal. If Starmer receives legal advice from the Attorney General which says such a war would be illegal, his hands are tied. Such legal advice is, as a rule, never published.
|
>> You will remember the business about the legal advice given to Blair before the 2nd
>> Gulf War, and the need to include enough evidence to show that a war would
>> be legal.
As I keep saying the stuff about legality of GW2 dragged on and on.
That Badenoch and her fellow travellers seem to forget their own colleagues pursuit of that story tells us all we need to know.
|
> As I keep saying the stuff about legality of GW2 dragged on and on.
>>
>> That Badenoch and her fellow travellers seem to forget their own colleagues pursuit of that
>> story tells us all we need to know.
>>
It's hard to tell as she appears to not be very bright, i think she's an opportunity to show the PM as inflexible and it's long enough in the past that its seen as not a big thing anymore.
|
Putin has been to several countries countries that are signatory to the icc. That i can remember, South Africa, Turkey, Mongolia, i think he went to Brazil as well.
|
The warrant for Putin's arrest was issued in 2023.
The only signatory he's visited since then is Mongolia, which he considered little risk, though his non-arrest caused a stink.
He cancelled a planned visit to SA as the risk of arrest was judged much greater. (He has met with SA on his own ground).
AFAIK, not surprisingly neither Turkey nor Brazil are currently signatories.
|
I thought turkey and brazil were, my mistake.
Looking at wiki, it says both SA and Brazil still are still signatories.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 9 Mar 26 at 20:12
|
Yes, my bad. I was using the ICC site, and it was to one side.
Frankly, I should have known because (à la SA comment) he skipped the 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil due to risk of having the warrant served (and I recall that as well).
|
|
Yes it was unlikely the SA gov would have done much, the ANC and Moscow are close allies, certainly one of their closer relationships in Africa.
|
That so many countries are not signatories to the ICC, and some countries which are, happily ignore their responsibiliies is testament to its futility.
To have credibility it needs to be universally adopted with the more powerful ensurng all live up to their obligations. That includes Russia China India to name but a few.
Starmer could have received different equally professional advice. Where facts are open to nterpretation - Iran intent, capabilities, timescales etc- lawyers are entirely capable of providing the answer wanted
He did not need a dodgy dossier, he just did not want any involvement. IMHO he was wrong.
|
>>He did not need a dodgy dossier, he just did not want any involvement.
I think that's right. It looked like a very stupid and dangerous thing to do, UK had not been consulted, and positive support looked unwise.
>> IMHO he was wrong.
IMHO he was dead right. And the illegality provided a perfect justification.
|
There is no such thing as legal or illegal war. Its all legal or illegal to someone. Its about justification based on your own standards, involvement and effects.
>> He did not need a dodgy dossier, he just did not want any involvement. IMHO
>> he was wrong.
IMHO he was right, at the outset it didnt affect us, so no involvement. Then it did, so we were.
Lets no beat about the bush or pussyfoot here. This is an Isaraeli war, and Trump is their tool
|
>> after the greek, french, spanish, italian and dutch ships have arrived.
>>
...surplus to requirements, then...
|
>>
>> >> after the greek, french, spanish, italian and dutch ships have arrived.
>> >>
>>
>> ...surplus to requirements, then...
>>
...well it might well be now...
|
>> Anyway turns out the only destroyer spare won't arrive until sometime next week, after the
>> greek, french, spanish, italian and dutch ships have arrived.
>>
And the Swiss! Don't forget the Swiss!
|
>> Anyway turns out the only destroyer spare won't arrive until sometime next week, after the
>> greek, french, spanish, italian and dutch ships have arrived.
I cant believe we dont have one capable sea going asset on standby in Gib, its still a naval base, and its not like the Med is short of military action in the last decade.
|
Just as well no-one has declared war on us, if it takes us a few weeks to mobilise what's left of our navy.
The army has spaffed tens of millions on a not-fit-for-purpose battle machine.
MoD procurement needs a bit of a reality check.
|
|
We better be prepared to pay far , far more in taxes then.
|
|
Sorry to drone (see that!) on about this, but couldn't we be like the Swiss? The world is in uproar, so the Swiss check their fingernails again - oh really? - oh dear - checks fingernails again.
|
>> Sorry to drone (see that!) on about this, but couldn't we be like the Swiss?
>> The world is in uproar, so the Swiss check their fingernails again - oh really?
>> - oh dear - checks fingernails again.
Whilst (like Sweden) working out what they can manufacture and flog to all involved - Bofors guns, bearings etc.
|
The world is in uproar, so the Swiss check their fingernails again - oh really?
At least my swiss ex-wife has her mandatory "underground bomb" shelter in place in her house and I believe a couple of months of canned and dried foods. Not that it'll matter if there is nothing to come out to...
|
>> The world is in uproar, so the Swiss check their fingernails again - oh really?
Yes, really.
AI Overview
The last armed conflict involving Switzerland was the Sonderbund War in November 1847, a brief civil war where the federal government defeated a separatist alliance of seven Catholic cantons. Lasting less than a month with about 130 casualties,
The Swiss do not get involved, they just hold the wallets of the combatants.
Pub talk? Possibly, but it is essentially true.
|
>>
>> >>
>>
>> I cant believe we dont have one capable sea going asset on standby in Gib,
>> its still a naval base, and its not like the Med is short of military
>> action in the last decade.
>>
I think they would like that in an ideal world, but it would cost more than how we do it now.
|
|
Along with oil, gas and fertiliser supplies affected, looks like the next commodity will be water. Iranian desalination plants destroyed, Iranian is now threatening to do the same across the Middle East.
|
|
Many years ago, considered opinion said that the next world war would be about water, not fuel supplies ....
|
Now that Iran has chosen Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader it must be dawning on Trump that he won't get to choose the new dictator and not much will permanently change.
Israel has said they'll kill him but I think he'll be well hidden.
It looks as if Iran was actually better prepared than the US for this war. They pretty much control the Strait of Hormuz and they want oil to be $150 a barrel. That is enough to risk a world recession. UK and others face cost of living increases. Trump has done nobody any good except possibly Russia and China. US Gulf allies have been attacked by Iran and will not presumably be thanking Trump for that. China is thought to be quietly helping Iran, at least with intelligence. Iran has destroyed some key American radar bases.
Not long now until Trump pulls out and declares victory, is my guess. Few will be fooled.
If it wasn't obvious before that Starmer knew what he was doing, it should be now.
|
How anyone could think they could force a regime change of a country as large as Iran through an aerial bombing must be as mad as someone like Trump.
Israel destroyed most of Gaza and that's still under the thumb of Hamas.
|
news.sky.com/story/two-reasons-it-took-so-long-to-deploy-hms-dragon-and-former-navy-commander-says-neither-are-good-13517837
HMS Dragon has left for the Mediterranean bit of background about the state of the navy and why it took so long from an ex navy officer.
|
x.com/osinttechnical/status/2032433800072790251
What outstanding powers of observation Pete H has.
|
...and he's absolutely no idea why they would have decided to do that...
The following words, copied from a comment column elsewhere and attributed (humorously) to DT demonstrate how difficult it is to satirise the unsatirisable:
"The non-war I didn’t start but was actually started by me because Iran was about to initiate a nuclear attack on the entire world with weapons that I told you were obliterated last year is ending, except it’s not ending because it’s just beginning, but it’s ending soon, we just don’t know when and if you question that you’re a Panican. Israel did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and refuses international inspection of its nuclear facilities. Iran did sign the treaty and has consistently allowed inspectors to review its facilities, all of whom said that they have zero weapons. I ripped it up out of spite because I was jealous that it had Obama's name on it. The only reason I said the war-not-war would be ending, which it’s not, is because I panicked when I saw oil prices exploding, which weren’t exploding; they were just jumping for joy that we’ve left Iran in a more dangerous position than it was before I began firing ~$3 million missiles at ~$50,000 drones and unaliving schoolkids as a favour to a guy that’s on the run from the International Court of Justice where he stands accused of war crimes. By the way, I’ve been completely exhonorated by the Epstein files, and Gavin Newsom can't read..."
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LvPObzkF-8&list=PLjQlb8MJdTK2tBaBXmK7fez0asu1Xx-O7
I have just watched the above Times News podcast.
I found it interesting - a general and the interviewee, a former foreign office diplomat with long Iran experience.
The US might not find it easy to 'open' the Strait or to protect transiting ships. It would also be high risk in that it would be disastrous if an American 'convoy escort' were sunk by a mine or missile. That might make sense of Iran's statement they they will decide when the war is over. The view was given that Iran saw this coming a mile off and has been preparing for months if not years. That might explain their instant response in attacking Gulf US allies.
If Iran seals the Strait to all but its own and Russian/Chinese ships for months then a global recession looks more likely.
It's almost as if the US didn't think about this. That can't be true of the Pentagon of course but was the news host / War secretary listening?
|
It would also be high risk in that it would be disastrous if an
>> American 'convoy escort' were sunk by a mine or missile.
There's also the shahed type drones, they can hit the gulf from literally anywhere in Iran such is their range.
|
I feel this isn't quite the "excursion" Trump had envisaged. One way or another they are losing assets and still haven't nailed it down, despite having (allegedly) made large inroads into the Iran military machine. Friday was supposed to be a day of reckoning wasn't it, but I don't see much to write home about even if what they are claiming is all true. I don't think that was the first such prediction either.
I do hope it is over soon though, death and destruction on this kind of scale isn't pretty.
|
>> There's also the shahed type drones, they can hit the gulf from literally anywhere in
>> Iran such is their range.
There are several drone models from Shahed Aviation being used. The favoured ones are those that were exported to the USSR. Lets look at 1 type, the 136, known in the USSR as the Geran 2.
Delta wing, 3.5m long, 2.5m wingspan, jetisoned rocket assist launch (in swarms from a rack on the back of a small truck), propelled to target by pusher propellor, (petrol engine*) guidance by sat nav (all the types) and inertial guidance, can have sat phone/4 & 5g comms. Range up to 2,500km, speed 185kph, payload is 50 -90kg HE.
Design poached from the Germans in the 80s, sub assemblies made from readily available western components, can be put together in a domestic garages, and launched from any yard, car park, forest clearing. Cost? each drone 10 -50k$
Any of this sound familiar? These are not "drones" German V1 anyone? required the diversion of 25% of the largest invasion force ever seen to combat.
* Clone of the German Limbach 550e, air cooled 550cc 4 cylinder two stroke.
They have others of course, one is based on a stolen US Lockheed Martin.
|
>> If Iran seals the Strait to all but its own and Russian/Chinese ships for months
>> then a global recession looks more likely.
It cant. It can make the Strait un-navigable to everyone and everything, but not selectively.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LvPObzkF-8&list=PLjQlb8MJdTK2tBaBXmK7fez0asu1Xx-O7
>>
>> I have just watched the above Times News podcast.
>>
>> I found it interesting - a general and the interviewee, a former foreign office diplomat
>> with long Iran experience.
>>
I was reading a comment piece in one of the MSM with input from both a past military "high-up" and a past diplomat, both US.
They explained that the Pentagon had been "wargaming" Iran for years, but the end state was never desirable, for a number of factors including the difficulty of engineering regime change and the issues around the Strait of Hormuz.
It repeatedly led to it ending up in the "too difficult" tray, and hence the continuing attempts by successive administrations at resolution by diplomatic means.
Trump, od course, tore that up.
|
And, extract from today's Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON—Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Caine said in several briefings that U.S. officials had long believed Iran would deploy mines, drones and missiles to close the world’s most vital shipping lane, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
Trump acknowledged the risk, these people said, but moved forward with the most consequential foreign-policy decision of his two presidencies. He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it.
Now, two weeks into the war, Iran’s leaders have refused to back down, and the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as Tehran’s most potent leverage point.
|
Although very different, there is much in common with Ukraine. Both Putin and Trump seem to have massively misjudged the response.
The IRGC are ~200,000 strong and control a paramilitary force (Basij) of 400,000. Both have responsibility for enforcing state control and moral behaviours. It is unlikely Trump, or any western or Middle Eastern state would regard them an acceptable alternative to the Ayatollahs.
Given the violence already deployed against protesters it is unlikely they would capitulate and lay down their arms - then risk being set upon by those they have abused over several decades.
That the US can secure Hormuz is for the fairies. Even a single VLCC sunk would be a vast environmental mess. May also disrupt desalination plants in the Gulf. Whether using drones, mines, missiles, etc tanker movements without Iran consent seems unlikely.
A more radical solution may be to promise massive aid and removal of sanctions if the hoped for uprising is ever to happen. Deploy a fleet of container ships loaded with critical supplies, and line them up ready to dock as soon as a new leadership is in place.
This may motivate Iranian citizens but I doubt Trump would contemplate it - more likely he will declare victory with the job unfinished.
|
I think the problem with the uprising idea is that the dissidents are unarmed, and up against 200,000 armed-to-the -teeth IRGC as well as police and army.
Trump has 2,500 marines on the way. I hope that's just a bluster upgrade because I don't fancy their chances.
I'm getting really worried. He needs stopping now.
I heard a commentator speculating earlier that the US might be contemplating trying to seize the oil infrastructure on Kharg island. Trump says he has destroyed all the military stuff there but not the oil facilities, possibly because doing that would put the crude price up further.
|
>>more likely he will declare victory with the job unfinished.
I hope so. But he has to accept that he can't finish it without destroying the world.
|
Trump said he took the final decision to attack on advice from his son in law Jared Kushner and property magnate Steve Witkoff.
No comment.
|
>> Trump said he took the final decision to attack on advice from his son in
>> law Jared Kushner and property magnate Steve Witkoff.
It's reported that something convinced Kushner that Iran would very soon have weapons to hit mainland US.
WMD.....
|
Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants. Strikingly lacking in expertise relating to their job and certainly lacking in statesmanship, their only qualification as far as Trump is concerned is their unquestioning loyalty.
So Trump, devoid of common sense or even an average level of intelligence, lives in an echo chamber in which his own ideas are reflected back at him and he's convinced he's always right about everything.
It's beyond satire (as has been pointed out), but it would be amusing in a sad sort of way if it wasn't all so b***** disastrous for the rest of the world.
|
<< Strikingly lacking in expertise relating to their job and certainly lacking in statesmanship, >>
That has been blatantly clear since the start of his first term. I hoped he might learn on the job, as it were, but was not surprised when that didn't happen. My brother-in-law's wife is American and says the only reason not to dispose quietly of Trump is that JDV would take over, and he could be worse because he is more intelligent ....
|
>> Trump said he took the final decision to attack on advice from his son in law Jared Kushner and property magnate Steve Witkoff. >>
So he has his scapegoats lined up ready.
|
There seems to be an unstable stalemate.
The Strait was always Iran's trump card. Another month of it being closed cannot be contemplated economically or, for Trump, politically.
Trump has almost certainly been told not to put multi-$billion ships in harm's way where one could be sunk by a lucky shot with a $20,000 missile. Perhaps he has had a flat refusal from the military.
Even the world's greatest negotiator won't find it easy to get an acceptable deal from an opponent that has his cods in a vice grip. And Iran's demands will not be trivial or easy to concede. Reparations, sanctions removal, non aggression agreement, no US forces in the Gulf, for a start.
Trump missed his best chance to drop hands and claim victory after the first week. To claim it now he would have to get the Strait open and get some sort of deal on nuclear, which is what this was all supposedly about.
He also has some MAGA nutters arguing for escalation although they are a minority. I hope somebody has switched out the nuclear briefcase.
|
>>
>>
>> He also has some MAGA nutters arguing for escalation although they are a minority. I
>> hope somebody has switched out the nuclear briefcase.
>>
That's the biggest worry, whether Trump is unstable enough to use a nuclear bomb.
For all his faults, Starmer has made the correct decision in keeping out of it.
|
"For all his faults, Starmer has made the correct decision in keeping out of it."
Is this Maggie's Falklands in reverse.
|
>> That's the biggest worry, whether Trump is unstable enough to use a nuclear bomb. >>
I'd be surprised (and worried) if Trump's is the only finger on the nuclear button. I would hope that if he decided to fire, the senior military would need to ratify. If they were to advise pushing the button, we would have to hope that the president would not agree :-(
|
|
I would like to think it's more than 2 people. Imagine if it were just the Mango Mussolini and Popgun Pete.
|
>> That's the biggest worry, whether Trump is unstable enough to use a nuclear bomb.
>>
I recall the nuclear war in the film Treads was started after an invasion of Iran.
|
>> He also has some MAGA nutters arguing for escalation although they are a minority. I
>> hope somebody has switched out the nuclear briefcase.
>>
Some will but interestingly some of the maga want the opposite, they see it as another forever war in the middle east. One of his counter terrorism directors has resigned over the war.
|
>> markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=brent
>>
Change the graph to a five year view and the context is very different.
Not remotely suggesting what is happening is good. But a graph of oil prices with the y-axis starting at $60 covering only the last year is an example of “lies damn lies, and statistics “ - absolutely precise but adds little to the story.
|
For the Ayatollahs, survival is the objective.
This conflict is an illustration of how even with utterly dominant military capability, Trump is being outmanoeuvred. Iran will marginalise the US and Israel as the rest of the world increasingly sees them as responsible for the resulting economic woes.
Trump is now threatening to destroy Irans oil and gas industries compounding economic impacts. I’m not entirely sure how this helps- a further illustration of how counterproductive the US strategy is.
The increasing ability of almost any nation to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) globally means the conventional approach to policing through military superiority is obsolete.
Bastions of democracy - N Korea and Pakistan - have them. A new way for the world to manage the rights and obligations of all states is needed. More ship, guns, missiles, planes simply doesn’t cut it anymore.
|
A new way for the world to manage the rights and obligations of all states is needed
Some sort of united association of nations who agree to be subject to international laws you mean?
Surprised thats not been tried already.
|
>> Surprised thats not been tried already.
I would guess it would be universally ignored, and end up as a pointless talking shop.
|
>> A new way for
>> the world to manage the rights and obligations of all states is needed. More ship,
>> guns, missiles, planes simply doesn’t cut it anymore.
>>
Exactly.
And of course it was Winston Churchill, Trump's favourite UK PM, who said "Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war", at a luncheon in The White House (famously mis-quoted as 'jaw-jaw is better than war-war'). Perhaps an enlightened journalist could remind Trump of this?
|
|
Trumps comment today, in front of the Japanese pm, made me sit opened mouth staring at the TV........
|
>> Trumps comment today, in front of the Japanese pm, made me sit opened mouth staring
>> at the TV........
>>
Either:...
The man has no filter.
He's just nasty and likes humiliating people.
He's an idiot.
I wonder if the stories that he's is that he's still in the pocket of Putin have some ground. He's offending all of his allies including NATO. He's trying to get NATO to commit ships to the Gulf and therefore not protecting Europe. He is getting NATO to use up their air defence missiles. He's increased oil revenue to Russia significantly.
|
>>
>>
>> I wonder if the stories that he's is that he's still in the pocket of
>> Putin have some ground.
>>
Maybe Putin knows (And has evidence) of what's in the Epstein files about Trump.
|
>> Maybe Putin knows (And has evidence) of what's in the Epstein files about Trump.
Don't you reckon the Israelis do, with their intelligence gathering abilities?
|
<< He's an idiot. >>
Trump has simply never been cut out to be anything resembling a 'politician' or a 'statesman'. His ways were set in his teens by his father telling him never to admit anything or to submit. Thinking before opening mouth is something he has never learnt or even considered.
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Fri 20 Mar 26 at 09:43
|
>>
>> Trump has simply never been cut out to be anything resembling a 'politician' or a
>> 'statesman'. His ways were set in his teens by his father telling him never to
>> admit anything or to submit. Thinking before opening mouth is something he has never learnt
>> or even considered.
On the contrary - he has much in common with modern politicians seeking electoral success in a democracy.
Completely untrustworthy. Changes the narrative to suit changed circumstances. Conveniently forgets that which he said only a few days previously. Answers the question that he wanted to be asked, not the one that was.
There is one major difference. Most politicians are intellectually capable but dominated by ambition. Trump’s is overwhelmed by an oversized ego, childlike emotions, and permanent confusion - whether a function of passing years or evident from an early age is not clear.
|
We could go on for pages about what makes Trump what he is, but for me
1. He is almost totally disinhibited. If he has a thought, there's a good chance it will come out of his mouth.
2. He lies freely and dares anybody to deny what he says. I think this is related to his belief that if he says something often enough, people will believe it, and in effect it becomes the truth.
3. Although the self-declared world champion negotiator, he treats every negotiation as zero sum. His opponent has to lose for him to win.
4. He actively looks for ways to hurt people, because he enjoys it and because he is accustomed to extorting what he wants - power and money - by offering some relief from the pain he creates.
But he is coming undone. He has absolutely lost control of his war on Iran and apparently also of Israel, which has attacked Iran's gas field. Iran has reacted with threats of strikes on Saudi, UAE and Qatar oil facilities. It looks as if Trump will be forced to land troops to 'open' the strait and he is desperately promising Iran that there will be no more strikes by Israel on Iran's oil assets.
Iran seems to have positioned itself to draw the USA into another unwinnable war that they can't get out of.
There's a stunning Kissinger quote on asymmetric warfare in relation to Vietnam - "The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win."
Much as I want to see him humbled, I hope I'm wrong because he will never understand that he's utterly culpable, and it will be the world that suffers.
|
The latest outrageous comment from Trump is that the US is considering winding down the war in Iran but other nations must guard Hormuz.
In other words, countries which were not consulted and which had no say in starting the war on Iran are expected to deal with the mess Trump created.
|
The measure of a man.....
Re Robert Muller's passing:
Barrack Obama wrote
"Bob Mueller was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives. But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time. Michelle and I send our condolences to Bob’s family, and everyone who knew and admired him."
Donald Trump wrote: "Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!"
|
|
Probably a toss-up which of the two was most sincere, though. ;-)
|
>> TACO
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce35wke27ynt
Beat me to it; just seen same news on the Graun's feed.
|
Iran’s Fars news agency, which is affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has quoted a source as saying there has been “no direct or indirect connection” between Iran and Donald Trump, in contradiction to the US president’s statement just now.
Trump wouldn’t be lying would he?
|
>> Iran’s Fars news agency, which is affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has
>> quoted a source as saying there has been “no direct or indirect connection” between Iran
>> and Donald Trump, in contradiction to the US president’s statement just now.
>>
>> Trump wouldn’t be lying would he?
>>
Or perhaps the Iranians are. I wouldn't believe either of them.
|
>> Or perhaps the Iranians are. I wouldn't believe either of them.
There are multiple parts of Iran's government.
The Supreme Leader, who notionally controls it all, hasn't been seen since appointment.
There's an elected President and a Parliament (Majlis).
And then the Revolutionary Guards and the Army.
How they function together is, to Western eyes, a mystery.
Is it possible one arm has had talks, probably via intermediaries?
|
Trump never lies, he just creates an alternative truth. But it would be foolish to take this as de-escalation, much as I hope it is.
We are still at the brink. I think hitting power plants on which civilians rely is probably a war crime.
There was a report that Israel has already done strikes on power plants, perhaps in the hope of drawing Trump in before he TACO'd.
So far with 'only' shipments to US and allies being interrupted the economic damage has looked manageable. But if Trump attempts to take Kharg and Iran hits other Gulf oil facilities the damage could be much worse. We are used to bad things happening in foreign places that don't really affect us that much, but things could still get well beyond that.
I'd love to think we are past the worst. What could go wrong?
China could take the opportunity to go for Taiwan. Netanyahu is still there, as is Trump. Trump could abandon Ukraine. He could TACO on Iran and turn his distraction cannon on Greenland again.
I have been Chicken Littling about Trump since 2016, but the truth is he has generally been worse than I feared.
Trump and the people manipulating him must go but I wonder if the Reps have the capability.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 23 Mar 26 at 12:59
|
Soooo, I figured that as ww3 is happening this week, I best do a bit of prepping
Got the Basecamp ready and off we went this morning
Arrived set up and stood wondering why there was B52 bombers flying around
Maybe 10 miles from Fairford was not a good place to hunker down?
(Got the scanner onboard, and all the Fairford mil frequencies loaded up)
|
>>
>> (Got the scanner onboard, and all the Fairford mil frequencies loaded up)
>>
Let us know when it kicks off, then.
|
Being a bit slow today after a day in hospital yesterday (keep keeling over for no reason).
Apart from a tasty Mexican foodstuff, what does TACO stand for?
|
|
Trump Always Chickens Out
|
>> Trump Always Chickens Out
>>
His strategy is to make an outrageous initial demand then allow himself to be bargained down a bit thus giving his opponent the illusion of having a success.
|
>> >> Trump Always Chickens Out
>> His strategy is to make an outrageous initial demand then allow himself to be bargained down a bit thus giving his opponent the illusion of having a success. >>
Trump has grown up doing that in business, and he sees politics as no different. That idea just doesn't occur to him, or he can't get his head round it.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg547ljepvzo
This BBC headline suggests there may have been some insider knowledge that enabled some oil traders to make a huge amount of money on Trump's decision to postpone strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure. It is plausible.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg547ljepvzo
>>
>> This BBC headline suggests there may have been some insider knowledge that enabled some oil
>> traders to make a huge amount of money on Trump's decision to postpone strikes against
>> Iranian energy infrastructure. It is plausible.
Not just plausible - it may include those close to Trump doing a bit of personal trading.
The cynical could even believe the war was started to create an opportunity - it would explain the frequent strategy shifts, each one of which had a material impact on the markets.
Constant changes in tariffs imposed by Trump may seem the product of an unpredictable. impulsive and largely out of control president. They may just be a way to deliberately disrupt the markets (interest rates, stock market indices, share pricres)
|
|
The corruption is off the scale. It's not a coincidence.
|
|
The corruption is off the scale. It's not a coincidence.
|
The reek of bad faith is immense from Trump and his goons, as it always has been. Now it just operates in plain sight and with utter impunity.
I would bet a sizeable chunk that the fake "negotiations" prior to the initial US/Israeli strikes were 100% part of a plan to ensure that they knew exactly where the Iranian leadership were going to be prior to assassinating them.
|
From the BBC
The US is "negotiating with itself", a spokesman for the Iranian military says, adding: "Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you"
The comments came after Donald Trump insisted Iran wants a deal "so badly" - saying on Tuesday that Iran gave the US a "very big present worth a tremendous amount of money"
It’s all becoming increasingly bizarre. I’m beginning to think that an autocratic theocratic and violent regime is more believable than the President of the United States.
|
<< ... more believable than the President of the United States. >>
I guess Trump started with the assumption that his position meant he would always be believed. For most of us that idea has long gone, and the next incumbent(s) may take some time to recover. Rather like a motor manufacturer losing customer appeal ?
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Wed 25 Mar 26 at 09:42
|
<< ... more believable than the President of the United States. >>
Interesting article in today's Times describing those people (such as DJT) who habitually convince themselves of almost anything, to the point where that becomes the only possible reality. All else follows from that. Also explains why he U-turns and changes his mind so often.
|
>> I would bet a sizeable chunk that the fake "negotiations" prior to the initial US/Israeli
>> strikes were 100% part of a plan to ensure that they knew exactly where the
>> Iranian leadership were going to be prior to assassinating them.
Hey in a real war, that kind of thing is fair game, indeed a major part of military strategy. In the past the british have been top of the game in that respect, The germans were defeated as much by their idea that the Brits wouldnt stoop that low "as gentlemen" as they were military might*
Trump and the yanks are too dumb to think that way. Israel? too brutish. Tho TBF the IDF does seems to have uncanny intelegence sources.
*I am alway amused by Operation Mincemeat. Tho how much weight it carried is open to debate.
|
|
I had to laugh at a double post about coincidence.
|
>> www.daysoftheyear.com/days/manatee-appreciation-day/
>>
>> :)
>>
No idea what meaningful information is contained in the link. I wish the OP would enlighten us.
|
>> No idea what meaningful information is contained in the link. I wish the OP would
>> enlighten us.
Not sure why Dog chose this thread but perusal of posters on this thread/site explains why Manatee.
|
>>Not sure why Dog chose this thread but perusal of posters on this thread/site explains why Manatee.
T'was indeed posted in a jokey sort of way for our resident sea cow, hence the smiley.
|
It informs me that I have the smallest brain to body mass ratio of any mammal on earth.
I would contest this while DJT is alive.
|
We've had numerous military flights here recently.
There were RAF A400s along the Cuckmere valley a week or so ago.
Several fighter jet flybys including F35s (2 last Monday) and numerous Chinook flights along the coast, including one today. Some show up on Flight Radar 24 or ADS-B but by no means all.
Yesterday an A400 flew 500ft according to Flight Radar 24 above visible from my parent's home. It flew a long circular route from Brize Norton, over the Thames Estuary and back across the South Downs.
Training and "showing the flag" no doubt.
|
|
A friend flew out to China today for a month's holiday (His wife is Chinese). Not sure I'd be going to a potentially hostile country with the international situation as it is at present.
|
Yep and a regular occurrence over me, once you get your ear in you can recognise the high pitch drone flying over at a very high altitude (10,000m+ when they appear on FR24), they seem to use the waypoint beacon we have at Biggin Hill before flying out over to Europe.
Also nice to see so many airforces still flying C-130s, tracked several going overhead recently from Canada, US & Germany.
I was staying up at Wisbech last week, came home on Wednesday but stopped off at the Wicken Fen reserve - while there it was amazing how many fuel tankers flew over (not sure where to) for about an hour (I guess that's where all of the aviation fuel has gone!)
|
I was staying up at Wisbech last week, came home on Wednesday but stopped off
>> at the Wicken Fen reserve - while there it was amazing how many fuel tankers
>> flew over (not sure where to) for about an hour (I guess that's where all
>> of the aviation fuel has gone!)
>>
Probably supporting the bombers out of fairford.
|
|
Military aircraft noise is becoming an increasing nuisance.
|
x.com/juliandorey/status/2036560631088701734
AI video of the iran war, very well done and funny.
|
>> Military aircraft noise is becoming an increasing nuisance.
>>
I would have thought by they got to Norwich they'd be high enough that they aren't particularly loud.
|
|
They have been conducting exercises over Norwich recently. All of Norfolk is prone to aircraft noise, military, civilian and helicopter.
|
|
Probably just passing through, i don't there's any exercise areas over built areas. All the training areas are over the north Sea.
|
We're under the Daventry Radar Corridor which allows west/east and vv military traffic at ten or eleven thousand feet to cross the north/south bound airline traffic. Not over our roof tops by any means but whether A400M, B52/B1 or 'fighters' of on form or another they're pretty audible.
ADS B Exchange isn't showing anything at the moment but I'm pretty sure I've watched KC135 type kit orbiting over land in 'East Anglia' as well as the usual AAR zones which are, as Sooty says, over the sea.
|
>> Probably just passing through, i don't there's any exercise areas over built areas. All the
>> training areas are over the north Sea.
>>
Really?
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/25923725.military-aircraft-high-speed-exercises-norfolk/
|
Yes, it looks like they are transiting, it might be low or fast but it's not really an exercise area. Norwich is included in the area but its a big area. It might seem alot though if you're not used to it.
But you live there, was it very busy?
|
“but it's not really an exercise area.”
So why were they practising dog fights here then?
|
>> “but it's not really an exercise area.”
>>
>> So why were they practising dog fights here then?
Probably think the UFO in Rendlesham forest is in danger of taking off and wreaking havoc over Sandringham.
|
>> “but it's not really an exercise area.”
>>
>> So why were they practising dog fights here then?
>>
>>
>>
Were they?
|
>>
>> Were they?
>>
Yes they were and coincidentally I was in Aylsham this afternoon and sky was full of vapour trails in the clear blue sky. Saw a couple of departing fighter air craft .
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Were they?
>> >>
>> Yes they were and coincidentally I was in Aylsham this afternoon and sky was full
>> of vapour trails in the clear blue sky. Saw a couple of departing fighter air
>> craft .
>>
You saw them doing 'dogfighting' over Norwich city centre?
|
|
Regular Typhoon 'dog fights' over East Yorkshire. Generally up fom Coningsby.
|
|
Well back from my prepping exercise, pretty quiet really, 4 or 5 B52 sorties a day, an early morning 06:00 Zulu B1 take off but thats it. Managed to get "accidently" lost leaving the Cotswold Airport cafe, and took a "wrong" turn to have a quick look at the civilian airliners being dismantled on the North Side of the facilities.
|
|
Several Stratotankers going around from Mildenhall but their fight path routes shows they are doing holding patterns over the Isles of Scilly.
|
|
Who’d be King eh? Estranged from his son, his brother in internal exile, his daughter in law recovering from cancer as is he and they pack him off to spend a few days with the imbecile Trump.
|
|
Expenses-paid trip to The States. Who could resist that? (We've all been there) ;-)r
|
>> Who’d be King eh? Estranged from his son, his brother in internal exile, his daughter
>> in law recovering from cancer as is he and they pack him off to spend
>> a few days with the imbecile Trump.
While he's there, perhaps he can ask why, when his brother and (questionably) son did military service, potus and all his family didn't?
|
|
That has passed me by. I hope HM isn't going to suck up to the mango faced baboon.
|
I doubt Charles sees a US visit to Trump as any other than duty not pleasure. Its politics!!
If he goes he may mend a broken relationship - Trump seems to hold him in high regard.
If he doesn't go it may reinforce Trumps current low opinion of the UK.
The only real question is what gives the best prospect of limiting the damage wrought by the unpredictable and irrational clown in the White House.
|
I'm pretty sure HM won't feel unable to counsel against committing war crimes at least indirectly.
That seems to be Trump's plan as of Monday.
Maybe that seed has already been planted. His most recent remarks suggest he might just give up and declare victory, which I hope is the case and not just because that was my prediction when the war started.
He could even walk away with the strait still closed. He has already said it's up to the countries who depend on it to deal with it. Give him a couple of weeks and he'll say that's what they planned for.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 1 Apr 26 at 08:09
|
<< Trump seems to hold him in high regard. >>
Only while he thinks it may serve his own purposes !
|
Trump is interested in Trump. Anything that makes him th centre of attention is good whether jot be a hideous ballroom, his name emblazoned on tall buildings, invading countries or a State Visit by our King.
The thing Trump cannot bear is tone ignored.
|
I read somewhere that the imminent moon space flight is the precursor to them putting a man on the moon again with an American flag so they can colonise it and claim all the mineral and other rights before anyone else gets there.
Don't quite believe it but nor would it surprise me.
|
|
Slightly less unfeasible than anybody ever going to Mars. At least it's possible to get back from the moon.
|
>> At least it's possible to get back from the moon.
>>
Uber?
|
Artemis 4, the manned moon landing is planned for early 2028.
Just in time for the next US elections - the Trump Crater Base, Trump Lander, are inevitable. He may claim the whole satellite and rename it the Trump Moon. He thinks a third term inevitable after MAGA is delivered.
He and Musk will settle their differeces and Musk will provide the transport for the Trump Moon Break hoiliday company, Trump Minerals Extraction company etc.
He will threaten to cut off the tidal impact of moon upon earths oceans destroying marine ecosystems believing that he is transformed into a cosmic deity more than the equal of J**us, Moh*****d, etc.
|
<< He and Musk will settle their differences and Musk will provide the transport for the Trump Moon Break holiday company, Trump Minerals Extraction company etc. >>
We can only hope that they are obliged to stay there ....
|
|
I wonder if he could be persuaded to put the letter 'r' in the middle of moon?
|
>> Trump is interested in Trump. Anything that makes him th centre of attention is good
>> whether jot be a hideous ballroom, his name emblazoned on tall buildings, invading countries or
www.primetimer.com/features/is-trump-being-added-to-mount-rushmore-viral-daily-mail-article-claim-debunked
Don't even suggest it to Agent Orange
>>
>> The thing Trump cannot bear is tone ignored.
>>
|
tinyurl.com/24qwcrkq
Interesting article in The Guardian about the effects of Covid, Truss and Trump in the past 6 years,
|
... and now Pam Bondi has gone, she was a Yes man as well!!
Not a job for life, working for him, is it!!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9gjwdw9ygt
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 2 Apr 26 at 19:23
|
|
Note that he has promised her a sinecure, presumably so she will keep her gob shut about what's in the files.
|
And now... "US Army chief of staff asked to step down by Hegseth, sources say"
www.reuters.com/world/us/hegseth-has-asked-us-army-chief-staff-step-down-cbs-news-reports-2026-04-02/
They're dropping like flies...
|
|
What is her new job? 'Polisher of the Golden, er, Door-Handle'?
|
These two are both so stupid that I found this difficult to disbelieve! The best of this year's crop.
Liz Truss Appointed by Trump to Dismantle the 'Deep Space Blob' – Byline Times share.google/jmkOGAzwxU7BSfKbW
|
|
Iran have shot down US plane - believed to be F35. Pilot not yet found
|
|
One aircrew found and rescued, there's no news on the second.
|
Trump Vol 2 - - sooty123
